1.What do you think of children being given coffee in school in Brazil? How does it compare with soda machines in schools in America?EvidenceCommentaryCoffee has approximately 18.13 mg of caffeine when a Coca-Cola has approximately 2.83 mg.Any negative affects from caffeine are multiplied drastically from coffee compared to soft drinks. Just talking caffeine content wise, soda is better for people. Obviously soda has itÃÂs own faults (sugars, corn syrups, chemicals). Coffee is more extreme caffeine wise.
The good things about having coffee is that they are getting above average marks in school. It also helps increase memorizationPositive outcomes for state and schools. Also provides excellent source of capital, coffee production. Coffee is being influenced to kids in schools.
Coffee is almost a poison for a childÃÂs body. It will keep them up and their muscles very tense. Negative affects are increased due to the age of the kids.
Undeveloped bodies/minds can be extremely damaged by the abuse of coffee/caffeine. It is being used as a drug and influenced in schools.
http://surf11.com/entry/114/caffeine-coke-vs-coffee2. Do you agree with Robert Sheer that America is building an Empire?EvidenceCommentaryCondoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser, served as a Chevron Director and had an oil tanker named after her.
This questions the reasons for fighting in the middle east. Why are we really there? Whose interest is it for this war? If she were not involved with the oil companies would she be as interested in the middle east? Are our leaders always looking in our best interests? If there is capital to be made, U.S. will become involved, then try to justify actions.
Persian Gulf War, fought to save U.S. corporate interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
One of the definitions of an Imperialistic culture. Wars fought for economic interests, controlling capital. In this definition it looks like U.S. is Imperialistic and is building an Empire. By controlling resources around the globe, gaining a foothold to control more of the countries.
The United States has troops in 135 countries.
That is the most simple and straightforward evidence I can give on this topic. If we wanted to control another country (build an empire) we would most likely need to have physical control (military). This number shows how ready we are to control other nations.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html3. Considering that immigration created our nation, do you think that china is doing a reasonable thing by bringing Han Chinese into Xinjiang province?Evidence CommentaryThe railroad, completed last year, links Kashgar with rest of China.The Chinese government is trying to use this less occupied land space to continue expanding. Railroads allow for easy transportation of people or resources, resulting in development. Also mixes different cultures and regions of people. It is a good move economically but it causes political unrest.
In 1950 Han Chinese represented only 15 percent of XinjiangÃÂs population, now they constitute 40 percent. The Han population, which makes up 98 percent of chinaÃÂs population. Is becoming the majority in this province. This leads to cultural changes and economic changes. With more Han Chinese, the population will be more in favor of expansion and growth in the area. As more Han come, there will be an increase of immigrants until this area is overpopulated. At this rate the Uighur culture will be forgotten.
"I have also learned that the Chinese authorities have sent plainclothes Chinese police into Uighur schools ... to make sure nothing is going on there."This demonstrates the broken trust and relationships that the Uighurs have with the Chinese. Not only are there cultural and civil disputes but also the government does not trust them. The future for the Uighur minority is looking very doubtful. They have a different culture and different values, but they have what China wants, what it needs. China is not going to give up until the Xianjing province is imperialized.
http://www.thestar.com/article/3498444. Should peopleÃÂs genes be patented if they can save lives in the future? How does this relate to the controversy over abortion in America today?EvidenceCommentaryFor 17 years the U.S. government ÃÂ or a company that buys rights to the patent ÃÂ will have the sole right to use that individualÃÂs virus-infected cells for commercial purposes.A company would be able to purchase a part of somebodyÃÂs body. I would say that is immoral because you cannot put a price on a human body. No government should have rights to any part of anyone. This controversial decision would pave the way for many human rightsÃÂ violations and abuse. It will be very difficult to argue legal rights for peopleÃÂs rights in court. I think we should avoid this controversial route and look for alternative paths. Much like with abortion laws, the government would be deciding how much control you have over your body and what comes out of it.
Almost 200 U.S. religious leaders have called for a moratorium on gene patenting; saying life is not a ÃÂproduct of human invention.ÃÂIf this many spiritual leaders are protesting this act than we know that there are going to be many controversial aspects. We should avoid these situations whenever possible. If somebody has a possible viral solution and the doctors/scientists just want a blood sample, most people would be willing to comply. The government does not need to step-in unless the patient requests some kind of pension.
Some physicians fear if too many genes receive patents, genetic testing of patients could become prohibitively expensive. When capital investment buys out genetic scientific research, then it will becomes too difficult to maintain the research being invested in. Scientists should not have to do deal with commercialism and pay fees selective fees. After all their work benefits all of humanity and companies will begin to ÃÂbuyÃÂ all the credit. This shows the power/influence the commercial world has on society, companies are beginning to buy/sell the scientific cures and answers.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2314.html5. Is school imperialism? When is a definition so broad that it loses meaning?Evidence CommentaryMandatory School attendance for minors. In America, it is mandatory that all minors attend school up until a certain year. From this prospective, school is a form of imperialism. Kids are being told what they must do and for how long. In school there are also many more rules and restrictions that do not exist in the rest of society. Freedom among kids/teens is very limited when it comes to school, resembles imperialism. These rules are only created for school to be productive and beneficiary to society. Calling school a form of imperialism would misplace the meaning of the word. When you start calling functional, universally accepted, parts of society imperialism, the term loses meaning.
Society has consequences for not attending additional school years. Without ÃÂsufficientÃÂ schooling, many jobs will turn people down, no matter how skilled they are in a field. This creates a kind of cultural imperialism. In order to appear ÃÂcapableÃÂ or accomplished one has to have scholarly titles. Consequently ones who cannot afford extra schooling become stepped on by society.
Enforcing knowledge, teaching students what they know about the outside world. This is a pretty direct form of imperialism. By controlling what exactly is taught in schools, exercising control. Students are told everything that they learn. This leads to biases told in history lessons or misguided information. In a way school is a form of brainwashing where every student is taught the same thing about life and humanity. Schools form what kids know about the world around them.